Appeal No. 1996-4167 Page 3
Application No. 08/324,369
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 24, mailed July 28, 1995), the answer (Paper No. 33, mailed March
19, 1996) and the supplemental answer (Paper No. 35, mailed July 9, 1996) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to the brief (Paper No.
31, filed January 29, 1996) and reply brief (Paper No. 34, filed April 22, 1996) for the
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all the
evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the claims
under appeal.4 Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 6, 9,
11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
4 Thus, there is no need in this case for us to weigh the declaration under 37 CFR § 1.132 filed on
November 5, 1995 and argued in the reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007